D&D 5E On the healing options in the 5e DMG

[guachi]

I'm starting to think that I won't be playing 5e unless I can find a group who doesn't like the default healing rules.

You mean the short rest/long rest rules? Do you want them more stringent or more lenient?

 

[Gimul]

No. You misunderstand me.

I am not in the least interested in debating whether my feelings are as valid as yours.

I am interested in discussing various solutions to what I perceive to be a lack.

That's plenty "further conversation" for me.

Feel free to join in

No. I do not misunderstand you. You are supporting your players right to behave in a socially inappropriate manner; while simultaneously complaining that your players are behaving in a socially inappropriate manner.

This is not something the DMG can fix for you. It is a guide on how best adjudicate a game system. It is not a guide on how to be a better person and/or associate with better people (relative to generally accepted and established social convention).

I fully support the right of you and your table (and anyone really) to engage in general douchebaggery (assuming all involved parties are consenting); I feel no need to support your right to turn about and complain about said previously agreed upon douchebaggery.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

- If your GMing principles do prioritize generating content other than stuff your players have signaled they're interested in interacting with, what is it precisely?

It is not the place of the DM to bias content with respect to the players. The PCs are not protagonists in the story. There is no story, except what emerges as a product of their actions.

The players may hope that certain things might happen, but if I engineer those moments for them, then they are hollow. It seems highly disingenuous to me. I would not want a DM to do that to me, if I was playing, so I will not subject my players to that when I'm the DM.

The things that happen, and what the party encounters, will be exactly the same as what they would encounter if I didn't know what the players were hoping for. The primary job of the DM is to remain fair and unbiased.

 

[CapnZapp]

No. I do not misunderstand you. You are supporting your players right to behave in a socially inappropriate manner; while simultaneously complaining that your players are behaving in a socially inappropriate manner.

This is not something the DMG can fix for you. It is a guide on how best adjudicate a game system. It is not a guide on how to be a better person and/or associate with better people (relative to generally accepted and established social convention).

I fully support the right of you and your table (and anyone really) to engage in general douchebaggery (assuming all involved parties are consenting); I feel no need to support your right to turn about and complain about said previously agreed upon douchebaggery.

Sorry, did you just call the collective wish of my players to not have to fill the healer role "socially inappropriate"? Isn't that a tad hyperbolic?

And what on earth ddid they do to "engage in general douchebaggery"?

Since I have a hard time believing what my eyes are seeing, I'm just gonna ask you to step aside. Thank you

 

[Mouseferatu]

It is not the place of the DM to bias content with respect to the players. The PCs are not protagonists in the story. There is no story, except what emerges as a product of their actions.

Which is certainly a valid way to play, but far from the only one, or the only "right" one.

What you're describing is a sandbox campaign. That's great for those who want it. Some of us prefer campaigns that do have a specific story, in which the PCs are the protagonist. If that's not to your tastes, hey, great! But declaring it as the only way the DM is "supposed" to run things is both inaccurate and not conducive to further discussion.

 

[Eric V]

Yeah, that was fairly odd...there's plenty of examples of socially inappropriate behaviours on the forums but not wanting to play a healer surely can't be one of them.

I remember during the playtest the discussion re: healing and how it looked like the cleric was going to be a must in the party again. I hated that idea for a few reasons, but one of them was that it necessitated the existence of religion and/or gods/some kind of spirituality. I was hoping to play a different kind of setting, and the demand for healing in the form of the cleric made that virtually impossible.

Playing D&D since 1e, I can attest to the "short straw plays the cleric" idea...with an NPC thrown in. Same in 2e, though at least then people could specialize with spheres. Similar idea in 3e, though at a certain level, the cleric turned into such an ass-kicker that the demand for healing dropped significantly.

IMO, 4e did it right in 2 ways: One, firmly embracing the nature of hit points, allowing for the existence of the warlord class. Two, healing was a minor action, which meant that the healer was never forced to choose between healing and another type of heroic action. They got to do both. Even their buff spells often triggered of other such actions. Not coincidentally, we had more pc clerics in 4e than we did in all the other editions combined, no exaggeration.

Having said that, I am not sure the burden is as great in 5e as it is in 3e and before. In those editions, you had to prepare specific spells (3x cure light wounds, 2x cure critical wounds, etc.) In 5e, you use one slot out of 13+ to prepare a healing spell, and that's about it. Maybe you use slots on it and maybe you don't, but you aren't nearly as "locked in" as you were in 3e and before. So while I suppose technically you are playing a healer, it's only when direly necessary. And 5e did include healing word as a bonus action so the cleric doesn't have to make that tough choice anymore.

 

[Mouseferatu]

First, social pressure to heal should not stem from the nature on one's class, but from the nature of one's character. Simply put, healers heal; clerics further their diety's ethos; and the amount of overlap varies greatly. If your group is applying more pressure to heal on one class than the other; then your problem is not mechanical in nature, it is interpersonal.

While this is true, it is also true that the game encourages a high degree of overlap between those roles. If clerics are by far the game's best healer, it's not unreasonable of other players to assume that someone playing a cleric is also playing a healer--especially since that's been the assumption through half a dozen different forms of the game, now. You're absolutely right that the other players should support the cleric-player's stated goal of not being a healer, but failure to respect that doesn't make them douchebags, it simply represents a conflict of expectation.

Asking for mechanics that shift that expectation is not an unreasonable request, and is certainly not reason to dismiss the behavior or social contract of a gaming group.

 

[guachi]

This sentence says it all...

You are telling me how to run my game, and what about D&D my players ought to like. You make wild assumptions and treat my interests as a danger to the game itself, somehow. You come across as condescending and you are disruptive.

Finally, you keep engaging me in superficially polite conversation? Are you mad?

I am going to ask you nicely one more time: Don't derail my questions and don't undermine my interests!

In return, I won't derail and undermine yours. In fact, let's not talk to each other at all. Thank you.

You ask for advice on how to make the game more to your liking. You get advice on how to make the game more to your liking. You attack the person giving you advice on how to make the game more to your liking.

Your attitude is really confusing.

 

[pemerton]

The problem, you see, is that every party needs healing. (For my purposes, at least. If you disagree, then please don't state that. Instead, assume I'm right, so the discussion can proceed)

Whether I roll up a rogue or a cleric, if I don't supply it, somebody else must.

<snip>

This is what I want a solution for. Preferably official. Preferably in the DMG. Always optional.

What is your opinion of the "healing surge" option that has been reported to be in the DMG?

 

[pemerton]

the threshold between useful and required is thin

<snip>

Of course I don't want the party to be crippled too much when playing without a healer, but the more you make sure the party isn't crippled without a healer the more you cripple the healer by necessity.

Playing a healer should be like playing an archer - something that you do because it is fun for you, and is one viable pathway to contributing to the party's performance.

A party without an archer shouldn't be crippled, though - at best it should require a little more ingenuity to deal with enemies far away.

Similarly a party without a healer shouldn't be crippled - the PC that is brought in in lieu of the healer should be making a comparable contribution (eg by killing enemies quicker healing is made less necessary, or by using AoE spells to disrupt enemy formations incoming damage is reduced, or by buffing PCs' ACs more attacks are deflected than otherwise would be, etc).